+1 - Support as written. I know +1's aren't strictly needed in Last Call, but I want to explicitly state that I agree with the AC that sufficient consideration and discussion was given to the "should" vs. "shall" question before and during the PPM, and therefore I agree it is appropriate to send the policy to Last Call (and on to the board, if no un-considered objections are raised) without another public policy meeting/consultation.
-Scott As Scott above. rd On Oct 11, 2017 3:36 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: > Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements (Scott Leibrand) > 2. Re: LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: > Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements (Gary Buhrmaster) > 3. Re: LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: > Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements (Christoph Blecker) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:27:37 -0700 > From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > To: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy > ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements > Message-ID: > <CAGkMwz7-WoAz_NiFGWab0NEvCV0QvmPAd0-0rzn_ > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > +1 - Support as written. > > I know +1's aren't strictly needed in Last Call, but I want to explicitly > state that I agree with the AC that sufficient consideration and discussion > was given to the "should" vs. "shall" question before and during the PPM, > and therefore I agree it is appropriate to send the policy to Last Call > (and on to the board, if no un-considered objections are raised) without > another public policy meeting/consultation. > > -Scott > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 6 October 2017 and decided to send > > the following to Last Call: > > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration > > Requirements > > > > The AC provided the following statement to the community: > > > > "Based on strong community support - on both the Public Policy Mailing > > List and in person at ARIN 40 during the policy consultation - for > > replacing the "should" qualifier in section 6.5.5.4 with "shall", the > > Advisory Council, after careful review and discussion, has made the > > requested change to the text." > > > > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should > be > > provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call period will > > expire on 10 November 2017. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their > Last > > Call review. > > > > The full text is below and available at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ > > > > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > > > Regards, > > > > Sean Hopkins > > Policy Analyst > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > > > AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number > > Resource Policy: > > > > This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number > > policy for easier IPv6 Registrations. The staff and legal review noted a > > single clarification issue which has been addressed. There is ample > support > > for the proposal on PPML and no concerns have been raised by the > community > > regarding the proposal. > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory registration > > requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address assignments. IPv4 registration is > > triggered for an assignment of any address block equal to or greater > than a > > /29 (i.e., eight IPv4 addresses). In the case of IPv6, registration > occurs > > for an assignment of any block equal to or greater than a /64, which > > constitutes one entire IPv6 subnet and is the minimum block size for an > > allocation. Accordingly, there is a significant disparity between IPv4 > and > > IPv6 WHOIS registration thresholds in the case of assignments, resulting > in > > more work in the case of IPv6 than is the case for IPv4. There is no > > technical or policy rationale for the disparity, which could serve as a > > deterrent to more rapid IPv6 adoption. The purpose of this proposal is to > > eliminate the disparity and corresponding adverse consequences. > > > > Policy statement: > > > > 1) Alter section 6.5.5.1 "Reassignment information" of the NRPM to strike > > "assignment containing a /64 or more addresses" and change to > > "re-allocation, reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or > > subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced,? > > > > and > > > > 2) Alter section 6.5.5.2. "Assignments visible within 7 days" of the NRPM > > to strike the text "4.2.3.7.1" and change to ?6.5.5.1" > > > > and > > > > 3) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM by > > deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks" > > > > and > > > > 4) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient" of the > > NRPM, to read: "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /64 > > or more addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's > > registration database, the ISP shall register that assignment as > described > > in section 6.5.5.1." > > > > Comments: > > > > a. Timetable for implementation: Policy should be adopted as soon as > > possible. > > > > b. Anything else: > > > > Author Comments: > > > > IPv6 should not be more burdensome than the equivalent IPv4 network size. > > Currently, assignments of /29 or more of IPv4 space (8 addresses) require > > registration. The greatest majority of ISP customers who have assignments > > of IPv4 space are of a single IPv4 address which do not trigger any ARIN > > registration requirement when using IPv4. This is NOT true when these > same > > exact customers use IPv6, as assignments of /64 or more of IPv6 space > > require registration. Beginning with RFC 3177, it has been standard > > practice to assign a minimum assignment of /64 to every customer end user > > site, and less is never used. This means that ALL IPv6 assignments, > > including those customers that only use a single IPv4 address must be > > registered with ARIN if they are given the minimum assignment of /64 of > > IPv6 space. This additional effort may prevent ISP's from giving IPv6 > > addresses because of the additional expense of registering those > addresses > > with ARIN, which is not required for IPv4. The administrative burden of > > 100% customer registration of IPv6 customers is unreasonable, when such > is > > not required for those customers receiving only IPv4 connections. > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/ > attachments/20171011/18e764af/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 19:30:29 +0000 > From: Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy > ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements > Message-ID: > <CAMfXtQyFhBn6j3JiRsr-XXcPr2SDb7--uM9iaRF91a0=Mg7pqw > @mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:16 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 6 October 2017 and decided to send > the > > following to Last Call: > > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration > > Requirements > > > > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. > > Support as written. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:35:41 -0700 > From: Christoph Blecker <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy > ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements > Message-ID: > <CADx2oGGPS6xHzJ6gXGYF==HWAPnx6f3QAndiH7Gaa8e5kZFBUQ@mail. > gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Strongly support as written. > > Cheers, > Christoph > > On 11 October 2017 at 12:16, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 6 October 2017 and decided to send > > the following to Last Call: > > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration > > Requirements > > > > The AC provided the following statement to the community: > > > > "Based on strong community support - on both the Public Policy Mailing > > List and in person at ARIN 40 during the policy consultation - for > > replacing the "should" qualifier in section 6.5.5.4 with "shall", the > > Advisory Council, after careful review and discussion, has made the > > requested change to the text." > > > > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should > be > > provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call period will > > expire on 10 November 2017. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their > Last > > Call review. > > > > The full text is below and available at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ > > > > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > > > Regards, > > > > Sean Hopkins > > Policy Analyst > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > > > AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number > > Resource Policy: > > > > This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number > > policy for easier IPv6 Registrations. The staff and legal review noted a > > single clarification issue which has been addressed. There is ample > support > > for the proposal on PPML and no concerns have been raised by the > community > > regarding the proposal. > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory registration > > requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address assignments. IPv4 registration is > > triggered for an assignment of any address block equal to or greater > than a > > /29 (i.e., eight IPv4 addresses). In the case of IPv6, registration > occurs > > for an assignment of any block equal to or greater than a /64, which > > constitutes one entire IPv6 subnet and is the minimum block size for an > > allocation. Accordingly, there is a significant disparity between IPv4 > and > > IPv6 WHOIS registration thresholds in the case of assignments, resulting > in > > more work in the case of IPv6 than is the case for IPv4. There is no > > technical or policy rationale for the disparity, which could serve as a > > deterrent to more rapid IPv6 adoption. The purpose of this proposal is to > > eliminate the disparity and corresponding adverse consequences. > > > > Policy statement: > > > > 1) Alter section 6.5.5.1 "Reassignment information" of the NRPM to strike > > "assignment containing a /64 or more addresses" and change to > > "re-allocation, reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or > > subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced,? > > > > and > > > > 2) Alter section 6.5.5.2. "Assignments visible within 7 days" of the NRPM > > to strike the text "4.2.3.7.1" and change to ?6.5.5.1" > > > > and > > > > 3) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM by > > deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks" > > > > and > > > > 4) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient" of the > > NRPM, to read: "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /64 > > or more addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's > > registration database, the ISP shall register that assignment as > described > > in section 6.5.5.1." > > > > Comments: > > > > a. Timetable for implementation: Policy should be adopted as soon as > > possible. > > > > b. Anything else: > > > > Author Comments: > > > > IPv6 should not be more burdensome than the equivalent IPv4 network size. > > Currently, assignments of /29 or more of IPv4 space (8 addresses) require > > registration. The greatest majority of ISP customers who have assignments > > of IPv4 space are of a single IPv4 address which do not trigger any ARIN > > registration requirement when using IPv4. This is NOT true when these > same > > exact customers use IPv6, as assignments of /64 or more of IPv6 space > > require registration. Beginning with RFC 3177, it has been standard > > practice to assign a minimum assignment of /64 to every customer end user > > site, and less is never used. This means that ALL IPv6 assignments, > > including those customers that only use a single IPv4 address must be > > registered with ARIN if they are given the minimum assignment of /64 of > > IPv6 space. This additional effort may prevent ISP's from giving IPv6 > > addresses because of the additional expense of registering those > addresses > > with ARIN, which is not required for IPv4. The administrative burden of > > 100% customer registration of IPv6 customers is unreasonable, when such > is > > not required for those customers receiving only IPv4 connections. > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/ > attachments/20171011/c6d3a7c0/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > ------------------------------ > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 148, Issue 8 > ***************************************** >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
